The Louisiana Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline of an indefinite suspension based on a Missouri sanction.

The court struggled with the paucity of information in applying discipline

we note the exact nature of respondent’s misconduct is somewhat unclear based on the limited information contained in the Missouri judgment. Nevertheless, accepting as true the information provided by the ODC in the motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings, the crux of the misconduct seems to be that respondent engaged in a conflict of interest by showing his client lewd photographs and making suggestive sexual comments to her, and commingled his personal funds with trust funds in his operating account.

In our review of the Louisiana jurisprudence, we have been unable to find any cases involving a conflict of interest based solely upon a lawyer’s sexually suggestive comments towards a client. However, in cases involving consensual lawyer-client sexual relationships, we frequently impose suspensions in the range of three to nine months, all or part of which may be deferred…

In the instant case, the Missouri judgment does not discuss any aggravating or mitigating factors. Nonetheless, the fact that Missouri suspended respondent indefinitely but granted him leave to apply for reinstatement in six months perhaps suggests it did not find his conduct to be particularly egregious, which is not inconsistent with our holding in Mayeux and the line of cases sanctioning attorneys for engaging in sexual relationships with clients. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the discipline imposed by Missouri would result in grave injustice, be offensive to the public policy of Louisiana, or warrant substantially different discipline in Louisiana.

In reaching this conclusion, we acknowledge Louisiana does not have any procedural equivalent to the indefinite suspension imposed in Missouri. To the contrary, Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10(A)(2) specifically requires that a suspension shall be “for an appropriate fixed period of time not in excess of three years.” [Emphasis added.]

Nonetheless, we believe reciprocal disciplinary matters involve unique considerations. This court’s jurisprudence recognizes that “only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction…” A common theme of this court’s reciprocal disciplinary cases is deference to the decisions made by the sister state with which this court shares authority over the respondent.